On 02 Aug 2002 08:35:16 -0700 Conrad Steenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 05:46, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:59:12PM -0700, Conrad Steenberg > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 12:45, Christian Reis wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 08:53:11AM -0500, Jon Nelson > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:42:26 -0500 > > > > > Christopher Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Why isn't the *official* PyGTK distribution using > > > > > > 'gtk2' as its package name? This is going to make > > > > > > packaging *hell*. I implore James to change it before > > > > > > PyGTK 2.0-final is released. (There's always "import > > > > > > .. as ..") > > > > > > > > > > I agree. Please please please. That way, one doesn't > > > > > have to do a whole-sale switchover! pygtk2-1.99.12 > > > > > should be able to be installed alongside pygtk-1.6.8, > > > > > without interference, if possible, just as gtk1.2.x and > > > > > gtk2.x can be installed alongside each other without > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > Add me as a +1 to this idea, please. > > > Hmmm, I just joined the mailing list to ask the same > > > question ;-) > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > For all those wondering why things are the way they are, > > please see bug > > #70178: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70178 > > > > James explains here why the official version cannot be > > allowed to coexist with the current stable release. However, > > if packagers want, I could package the whole of gnome-python > > (not just pygtk) with a different module name, and people can > > just install that one instead. > > Please do, and start praying this becomes the default way of > installing pygtk2. Hacks like the one below are, err, > unacceptable :-) > > So what is the solution in the mean time to make existing > programs (both 1.2 and 2.0) work. Does this still involve some > hackery (like reversing the module import hierarchy so that > gtk.py is imported before gtk/__init__.py through a shell > script wrapper)? Located in the bug referenced above is a patch to the pygtk module to make it use gtk2. It's incomplete, however. I feel James' solution is a cop-out, and he hasn't sufficiently explained exactly *why* it's a bad idea of have: a package, pygtk2 which can be installed along pygtk Right now my pygtk stuff installs in /usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages/ and contains modules: {gtk,GDK,GTK,GdkImlib,GtkExtra}.py and {_gdkimlibmodule,_gtkmodule}.so as well as pyglade/bunch-of-stuff-here-too It is entirely unacceptable to me that James' solution to the multiple-versions-of-gtk-and-thus-pygtk-on-one-box problem is to use PYTHONPATH. That is so un-python. Why does it seem so hard to just use 'gtk2' for the module? It could even be a package ala: /usr/lib/pythonfoo/site-packages/gtk2/__init__.py Maybe I'm talking out of my butt or something, but if I go to management and say, "I'd like to develop and deploy gtk2 stuff using pygtk2, but that means that in the meantime I have to: hack the package to install in a different (non-pythony) root hack the programs to use PYTHONPATH or almost certainly break existing apps using pygtk0 They are going to laff at me and say, "Why don't you use PyQT and PyKDE?" I *love* using pygtk and glade to produce software, but right now I'm stuck on 0.6.8 (gtk-1.2.6 is all RedHat 6.2 has), and pygtk-1.99.12 doesn't compile on anything I've got (up to date RedHat 7.2) because of the 900 dependencies. Are all of those dependencies really needed? glib >= 2.0.0, atk, pango? I just want gtk2 for crying out loud. -- Jon Nelson Just because it's not broken doesn't mean we can't take it apart. _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
